Actually, I had been thinking along similar lines lately. I've heard people say (and have almost certainly said myself) the term 'traditional photography', but when I really think on it, I don't think there really is such a thing.

I do think we live in an interesting time in that the transition to digital imaging is one of the largest changes to hit photography throughout the history of the art, but the reality is, photography has been continually growing and evolving at a fairly quick pace since the nineteenth century.

If Niépce and Daguerre could get their hands on the technology we have today, I'm sure they'd have jumped all over it. So many people after them struggled to move things forward to where they are today (and will be tomorrow), but it's all to further empower the one element that has been consistent throughout the decades: the human being behind the lens. In the end, what counts above all else is that that human being created an image that speaks to other human beings. Once that's been achieved, everything else in the middle becomes nothings more than a bit of white noise.

Thanks for reading it! Scott's blog does indeed get phenomenal traffic, some of which has come my way. Whether it will help market images remains to be seen. Nice to have such a wide-reaching outlet to share ideas.